Date:	Thu, 28 Sep 2000 08:03:29 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Martin Czamai <M DOT Czamai AT peak-system DOT com>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: An other question about locking functions in classes
In-Reply-To:	<8qsakc$9ak$1@news.germany.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000928080318.12601G-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Martin Czamai wrote:

> The static keyword is necessary to make it possible to lock my_ISR in
> memory, which is required since my_ISR is a interrupt service routine that
> must NOT be swapped out to disk. Currently I receive from the compiler the
> message, that it cannot call a member-function without an object. But I need
> member variables and methods of this class. :-((

Try to split the ISR-related code into two functions: one written in
C, which doesn't access any class members, the other in C++ which does
the rest.  Then you could install only the C function as the interrupt
handler and avoid the complications with C++ restrictions.

- Raw text -